CML-NV Rainbow Square, LLC v. Marretti et al

Filing 16

ORDER DISMISSING CASE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 1/30/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8

CML-NV RAINBOW SQUARE, LLC,

9

2:11-CV-229 JCM (CWH)

Plaintiff,

10
11

v.
LAEDWEN LLC, et al.,

12
13

Defendants.

14

ORDER

15

Presently before the court is plaintiff CML-NV Rainbow Square, LLC’s motion for default

16

judgment. (Doc. #15). On May 12, 2011, the clerk entered default as to Laedwen, LLC. (Doc. #12).

17

Plaintiff seeks default judgment against defendant Laedwen, LLC in the amount of

18

$5,510,312.27 and interest accruing from the date of entry of the default judgment. This amount

19

includes actual damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. (Doc. #15).

20

However, before analyzing the motion for default judgment, the court first must determine

21

whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action. Federal courts are courts of limited

22

jurisdiction, and “[t]hey possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.” United

23

States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799, 810 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511

24

U.S. 375, 377 (1994)).

25

Federal courts are “presumed to lack jurisdiction . . . unless the contrary affirmatively

26

appears.” Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). Thus, the

27

party asserting diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of proof. Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 750 (9th

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

Cir. 1986). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), “if the court determines at any

2

time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”

3

Plaintiff asserts that this court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

4

Plaintiff is a limited liability company wholly owned by Multibank 2009-1 RES-ADC Venture, LLC

5

(“Multibank”). (Doc. #15). The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”) owns a

6

majority share of Multibank. (Docs. #1 and #15).

7

The motion for default recognizes that this court has dismissed several other similar cases

8

for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to the involvement of the FDIC. (Doc. #15, citing RES-NV

9

TVL, LLC v. Towne Vistas, LLC, et. al., 2:10-cv-1084-JCM-PAL; RES-NV APC, LLC v. Astoria

10

Pearl Creel, LLC, et. al., 2:11-cv-00381-LDG-RJJ). These cases present similar fact patterns and

11

similar parties to the case currently before the court. In both of those cases, the court held that it

12

lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the FDIC’s status as a federally chartered bank destroys

13

diversity citizenship.

14

Plaintiff points out that reconsideration motions have been filed in each of the above-

15

referenced cases, and states that it believes that “after reviewing the motions in the parallel cases,

16

the [c]ourt will determine that it does in fact have subject matter jurisdiction over those actions, and

17

has subject matter jurisdiction in this case, as well.” (Doc. #15). On December 30, 2011, this court

18

ruled on the reconsideration motion in RES-NV TVL, LLC v. Towne Vistas, LLC, et. al., 2:10-cv-

19

1084-JCM-PAL. The court held that “it is apparent that the FDIC is a member of Multibank; thus

20

diversity jurisdiction is destroyed.” Id. at doc. #79. Accordingly, this court was not convinced by

21

the reconsideration arguments.

22

Similar to the court’s finding in RES-NV TVL, LLC v. Towne Vistas, LLC, et. al., 2:10-cv-

23

1084-JCM-PAL, the court finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction in the case at bar. The

24

involvement of the FDIC precludes the court from exercising diversity jurisdiction.

25

As this court stated in its reconsideration order in RES-NV TVL, LLC v. Towne Vistas, LLC,

26

et. al., 2:10-cv-1084-JCM-PAL, “this court is guided by current precedent and applies the law as it

27

interprets it. Overturning precedent and setting policy falls within the sound discretion of the Ninth

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1

Circuit.” Id. at Doc. #79.

2

Accordingly,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the case of CML-NV

4

Rainbow Square, LLC v. Marretti, et. al., 2:11-cv-00229-JCM-CWH be, and the same hereby is,

5

DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

6

DATED January 30, 2012.

7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-